I am a Human Rights Reformer
Are Human Rights Activists Defending their Countries from International Tyranny or Supporting it Against the Local Tyranny they are Facing?
By Mekki ELMOGRABI
Press Writer on African Affairs
WhatsApp & Telegram +249912139350
elmograbi@gmail.com
One of the biggest challenges facing human rights philosophy is that some of its believers and advocates made it a new religion or ideology. They replace religious and ideological extremism with a new modern one.
I am a strong believer that human rights’ orientation is not contradicting faith, culture, and ethics. For me, as a researcher on human rights from Africa, I do believe that I have to respect western advocates and activists who are supporting human rights issues in my region and the third world but I will continue criticizing their mistakes in dealing with human rights issues. International organizations and institutes also deserve both support and criticism, specifically on these two points that I will explain:
Firstly: Needless to say, the human consensus supports human rights’ culture and orientation but the human consensus cannot be against religions and human heritage, it is rather should be a vital part of human rights orientation. The modern Culture of Human Rights itself is part of the human heritage and philosophy that represents the real human battle against tyranny and injustice during and after World War II.
Here is my point! Putting in mind that the source of the power of human rights culture is the human consensus this power has been weakened by manipulating human rights issues by the biggest international powers. Human rights’ power depends on maintaining the human consensus continuously by involving all partners from all nations and not ignoring them to impose selected versions of the culture on their countries. We must always support the dialogue based on the issues of Human, Environmental, and Peoples Rights, such dialogue leads to new and updated common principles and cooperation. Moreover, this reformative dialogue and cooperation is the only way to save human rights orientation from being heavily manipulated by governments.
Secondly: most (not all) of international legal instruments, treaties, charters, and even programs of human rights are highly valued references and literature but they could not be “obligatory texts”; they must be reviewed, revisited, and modified because the third world nations and underdeveloped countries were under colonization and tyranny at the time of drafting all these legal instruments.
A considerable number of developing and underdeveloped countries till now have had no real freedom to choose their economic and political partners.
This situation invalidates the human rights declarations and international instruments. The legitimacy of these legal instruments will come after a big and wide process of dialogue and modification.
The atmosphere of compliance after World War II makes it very difficult to say the declarations represent a real acceptance of the entire humanity. Considering these legal instruments as human rights academic references and literature does not mean to stop dealing with or promoting for them. Within the context of promotion and implementation, they should be written again.
More questions must be posed and answered during this reformative dialogue! How can we differentiate between local and international tyranny? What about the role of national human rights defenders on international tyranny? And what is the role of international human rights defenders on local tyranny? Are both roles balanced or with double speeds?
In other words, are human rights activists defending their countries from neocolonialism or supporting it against local tyranny in their countries. This situation will be ended by “tyranny replacement”.
Other controversial matters: human rights priorities and human rights conflict. A lot of issues and details to be put in the context of Human Rights reforms, a lot of studies, reports, records, etc. must be reviewed and revisited.
